2021 (8) TMI 370 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution - HELD THAT - It appeared that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the present appeal. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notices therefore following the decision in the case of CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya 1979 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT and in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D . We hereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. - Decided against assessee.

Issues:
1. Addition and withdrawal of TDS Credit
2. Confirmation of addition on transactions with certain parties
3. Confirmation of addition based on facts of a preceding assessment year
4. Direction to withdraw TDS Credit beyond the power of CIT(A)
5. Direction to withdraw TDS Credit without examining submitted details/evidences
6. Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution

1. Addition and withdrawal of TDS Credit:
The appellant contested the addition and withdrawal of TDS credit in the assessment for the year 2012-13. The grounds of appeal highlighted errors in confirming the addition and directing the withdrawal of TDS credit. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition and directed the Assessing Officer to withdraw a significant portion of the TDS credit claimed by the appellant. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in law and fact by making these decisions beyond the scope of the assessment.

2. Confirmation of addition on transactions with certain parties:
The appellant challenged the addition made on transactions with specific parties, emphasizing that all relevant evidence was submitted during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on alleged non-response to notices under section 133(6) and without considering the evidence filed by the appellant. The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition on conjectures and irrelevant considerations.

3. Confirmation of addition based on facts of a preceding assessment year:
The appellant objected to the confirmation of an addition related to transactions with certain parties based on facts from a preceding assessment year that were unrelated to the current assessment year. The appellant argued that each assessment year is distinct, and facts from one year cannot be the basis for disallowance in another year. The CIT(A) was criticized for presuming the appellant's inability to establish the genuineness of transactions without considering the evidence provided.

4. Direction to withdraw TDS Credit beyond the power of CIT(A):
The appellant raised concerns regarding the CIT(A) directing the withdrawal of TDS credit, stating that such action was outside the CIT(A)'s authority. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) lacked the power to withdraw benefits not covered in the assessment order. The CIT(A) was accused of withdrawing the TDS credit based on conjectures and disregarding the legal and factual aspects of the case.

5. Direction to withdraw TDS Credit without examining submitted details/evidences:
The appellant criticized the CIT(A) for instructing the Assessing Officer to withdraw TDS credit without considering the explanations, details, and evidence submitted during the appellate proceedings. The appellant highlighted that the TDS credit was claimed based on valid certificates and 26AS records. The CIT(A) was accused of disregarding the legal position and evidence filed by the appellant.

6. Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution:
Despite the appellant's absence during the hearing and the returned notice, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Citing precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant showed no interest in pursuing the appeal, leading to its dismissal.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the legal judgment, outlining the arguments presented by the appellant and the decisions made by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.

← Previous Next →